Physical universe vs spiritual realm

[Tayla]

Sounds like Kabbalah teaching to me. They try to explain the connection between the spiritual and the physical.

Interesting. I know nothing about Kabbalah.

My view comes from wanting to grant science their claims; since the scientific method is so strongly supported by philosophy, I don't wish to oppose it.

An additional influence is dualism from the study of subjective conscious experience by scientists and philosophers. Then add a dash of quantum mechanics.

In considering metaphysics from various philosophers, I began collecting a list of attributes that seem non-physical. Then using Christian metaphysics, and, viola. You have my view.

 

[Michael]

Thank you for you comments.

Yes, you are correct. Currently there are scientists and philosophers considering subjective consciousness, and some of these are dualists; meaning, consciousness or mind is distinct from matter as we currently understand it.

That's certainly true:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140116085105.htm
http://www.newdualism.org/papers/S.Hameroff/QSoulchap.pdf
https://consciouslifenews.com/human...sciousness-supports-science-religion/1181471/

 

[joshua 1 9]

My view comes from wanting to grant science their claims; since the scientific method is so strongly supported by philosophy, I don't wish to oppose it.

Then you should study Luke. He would have had more Greek training and He spent a lot of time talking to Mary. We know more about the mother of Jesus from Luke. So perhaps he can offer us some insight on just how Mary was able to have a Baby without a husband being involved.

 

[Tayla]

That's certainly true:

Thanks for providing the links.

I also highly recommend David Chalmers on YouTube.

 

[Tayla]

Then you should study Luke. He would have had more Greek training and He spent a lot of time talking to Mary. We know more about the mother of Jesus from Luke. So perhaps he can offer us some insight on just how Mary was able to have a Baby without a husband being involved.

Thank you for your comment.

The scientific method did not exist in those days. For example, the Greeks thought that thrown rocks traveled in a straight line until their motive energy was depleted, then they abruptly changed course and fell straight down.

Yes, I agree. Luke is worthy of ongoing continual lifelong study.

 

[Michael]

The scientific method did not exist in those days. For example, the Greeks thought that thrown rocks traveled in a straight line until their motive energy was depleted, then they abruptly changed course and fell straight down.

That sounds suspiciously like an urban legend rather than a real belief that most Greeks actually held. To hold such a belief one would have to have never thrown a rock (or any object) in their entire life, or they'd have to be blind.

Modern humans tend to think of ancient humans as 'stupid', whereas the pyramids demonstrate that they certainly weren't.

 

[Tayla]

That sounds suspiciously like an urban legend rather than a real belief that most Greeks actually held. To hold such a belief one would have to have never thrown a rock (or any object) in their entire life, or they'd have to be blind.

Modern humans tend to think of ancient humans as 'stupid', whereas the pyramids demonstrate that they certainly weren't.

Thank you for your comments.

It's no urban legend. Look for yourself here. Or here (slide 24)

I don't think the ancients were stupid. But I don't want to attribute views to them they didn't hold.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Similarly when considering consciousness as an emergent property; something new has been added. This implies that matter has creative powers analogous to those God has; to create something where before there was nothing.

This isn't anything unusual - it is the primary characteristic of emergent properties (definitive, or diagnostic, if you like), that they are novel and follow novel rules; i.e. not present in, or applicable to, the substrate elements from which they emerge. This is typically because they are products of the interaction of the substrate elements.

So a water molecule is not wet, a cellular automaton cell has no moving pattern, an ant colony has different and more sophisticated behaviours than any ant, etc.

No God-like powers required.

 

[Ophiolite]

Modern humans tend to think of ancient humans as 'stupid', whereas the pyramids demonstrate that they certainly weren't.

Although some modern humans, in their explanations for the origins of the pyramids, take 'stupid' to a whole new level.

 

[Tayla]

This isn't anything unusual - it is the primary characteristic of emergent properties (definitive, or diagnostic, if you like), that they are novel and follow novel rules; i.e. not present in, or applicable to, the substrate elements from which they emerge. This is typically because they are products of the interaction of the substrate elements.

So a water molecule is not wet, a cellular automaton cell has no moving pattern, an ant colony has different and more sophisticated behaviours than any ant, etc.

No God-like powers required.

Thank you for your comments.

The physics and chemistry never changes. It's the analytical function of the mind creating these emergent properties.

 

[Michael]

Thank you for your comments.

It's no urban legend. Look for yourself here. Or here (slide 24)

I don't think the ancients were stupid. But I don't want to attribute views to them they didn't hold.

Hmmm. Well the slide 24 you cited talks about cannons which weren't invented for more than a 1000 years later. Admittedly Aristotle was wrong about heavy objects falling faster and several other things too, but I'm having hard time finding anything in his writings that would suggest that he believed that a rock or an arrow would not curve toward the Earth during their travel. Could you site the actual section and paragraph where he made that claim?

The Internet Classics Archive | Physics by Aristotle

Obviously you didn't "make it up". Others have apparently stated it too, but I'm not sure that they were correct to start with, and I don't see such a statement in his original writings. Could you help me out and point out where in his writing that he made such a claim? It's certainly possible I missed it, but I can't find such a quote.

 

[Michael]

This isn't anything unusual - it is the primary characteristic of emergent properties (definitive, or diagnostic, if you like), that they are novel and follow novel rules; i.e. not present in, or applicable to, the substrate elements from which they emerge. This is typically because they are products of the interaction of the substrate elements.

So a water molecule is not wet, a cellular automaton cell has no moving pattern, an ant colony has different and more sophisticated behaviours than any ant, etc.

No God-like powers required.

Perhaps no "God-like" powers are required, but even an ant exhibits some amazingly sophisticated behaviors.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The physics and chemistry never changes. It's the analytical function of the mind creating these emergent properties.

Yup, that's how emergent properties work; the component elements just do what they do, and the interactions between them produce the emergent properties. In the brain it's the patterns of interaction activity between the neurons that constitute the mind.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Perhaps no "God-like" powers are required, but even an ant exhibits some amazingly sophisticated behaviors.

Sure; and individual neurons are also complex idiosyncratic goal-seeking entities, but they can't do what brains can do, just as individual ants can't do what the colony can do.

The more competent the components, the more complex and sophisticated the emergent properties of their interactions can be.

 

[Michael]

Sure; and individual neurons are also complex idiosyncratic goal-seeking entities, but they can't do what brains can do, just as individual ants can't do what the colony can do.

The more competent the components, the more complex and sophisticated the emergent properties of their interactions can be.

It is however interesting that ants seem to herd another species, a behavior that is attributed to humans in just the past 6000 years or so. That's pretty complex behavior for such a tiny 'brain".

 

[Larniavc]

I accept there is a soul and a spiritual realm because it is a Christian teaching.

Then why all the discussion? If that is what you believe that's great: but if you disallow the evidence that suggests that Christian teaching has no evidence other than what is revealed in the Bible, what is the point of the thread?

 

[Michael]

Then why all the discussion? If that is what you believe that's great: but if you disallow the evidence that suggests that Christian teaching has no evidence other than what is revealed in the Bible, what is the point of the thread?

It seems to me that there is still a "scientific" question related to the existence of 'soul' that warrants a scientific answer.

 

[Larniavc]

It seems to me that there is still a "scientific" question related to the existence of 'soul' that warrants a scientific answer.

That may be correct. But until there is a way show that souls exist we're not going to get anywhere.

That's not to rule out a hitherto unevidenced manifestion of a facet of existence, but until that happens we have to tentatively conclude that there is no soul on the table to examine.

Which is a shame as it's a great concept.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It is however interesting that ants seem to herd another species, a behavior that is attributed to humans in just the past 6000 years or so. That's pretty complex behavior for such a tiny 'brain".

Yes, it is; but each type of ant has a very specific role and is supported by other specialists, so its ~250,000 neurons don't have to devote resources to the range of behaviours and flexibility an independent agent would require.

As for the parrot - it's even more impressive when they are given a novel puzzle to solve that they have not seen being set up - then they have to use more reasoning than memory.

 

[Larniavc]

Thank you for your thoughtful comments.

I propose the chemical, biological components reside in the physical realm. The other components (such as love, emotions, pleasure, bonding, trust, maternal instincts) reside in the spiritual realm. There is communication between the two realms so they function holistically.

What stops emotions from simply being physiological reactions to stimulus that affect and are mediated by our cognition?